Whatever Korean is for Mazel Tov, I wish them that.
Mazel Tov
According to Google Translate, it's 축하합니다
I'm confused why is this historic I'm positive this has happened before. Why would the sexual orientation have anything to do with whether or not IVF would work.
I don't get it.
The article isn't about a scientific advancement, but a discussion of the limits on human rights in South Korea.
"While South Korea has not yet legalised same-sex marriage, and sperm banks in the country are only accessible to heterosexual married couples, the pair were able to tie the knot in New York in 2019, and receive IVF treatment in Europe."
🎉
I'm all for IVF but it should be second to adoption.
Shouldn't it be up to the parents?
Who said it isn't? But maybe, for the benefit of society as a whole, we should look at housing the ones we have before making more.
South Korea has one of the lower natality rates of the world, having more kids benefits them.
Cool, I just hope that coincides with the highest rates of adoption in the world.
Not everyone's capable of loving other people's kids but they can still be great parents to their own. Why not let them?
Not everyone's capable of loving other people's kids
Sounds like a them-problem then
Such a them problem is not a reason not to let them reproduce.
No one said it was. Learn nuance.
So what do you think they meant by the the them-problem? What point were they trying to make? Do you think the comment was in favour of helping people with biological reproduction even though their not interested in adoption? Please, help me learn nuance.
I wasn't aware that being infertile meant that society can do what it wants with you.
Better idea: raise all children in a creche until they're 10, then have couples draft them like a fantasy football team.
Would that mean all the worst parents would draft first?
I want to moneyball that bitch. Get twenty kids whose expected value is higher than their sale value. While you yuppies will be bankrupt buying one genius kid I will have twenty smart kids for the same price turning out code and content.
Tell that to a hetero couple.
Why discriminate?
Do you say the same thing to couples conceiving naturally; that natural conception should be second to adoption?
Because if you don't, you would be the one discriminating.
Yes.
When was the last time you told that to a hetero couple?
In my original comment. Because I don't discriminate you'll notice that I didn't specify who should choose adoption, that means everyone should. I get that are you just being disingenuous because you've never seen someone with conviction of morals before, but please, try to catch up.
Do you know how complicated and long an adoption process is? Sure, it would be awesome if people adopted kids instead of making more, but adoption will not be a viable option for most people until that mess is somved.
Good for them.
Whatever Korean is for Mazel Tov, I wish them that.
According to Google Translate, it's 축하합니다
I'm confused why is this historic I'm positive this has happened before. Why would the sexual orientation have anything to do with whether or not IVF would work.
I don't get it.
The article isn't about a scientific advancement, but a discussion of the limits on human rights in South Korea. "While South Korea has not yet legalised same-sex marriage, and sperm banks in the country are only accessible to heterosexual married couples, the pair were able to tie the knot in New York in 2019, and receive IVF treatment in Europe."
🎉
I'm all for IVF but it should be second to adoption.
Shouldn't it be up to the parents?
Who said it isn't? But maybe, for the benefit of society as a whole, we should look at housing the ones we have before making more.
South Korea has one of the lower natality rates of the world, having more kids benefits them.
Cool, I just hope that coincides with the highest rates of adoption in the world.
Not everyone's capable of loving other people's kids but they can still be great parents to their own. Why not let them?
Sounds like a them-problem then
Such a them problem is not a reason not to let them reproduce.
No one said it was. Learn nuance.
So what do you think they meant by the the them-problem? What point were they trying to make? Do you think the comment was in favour of helping people with biological reproduction even though their not interested in adoption? Please, help me learn nuance.
I wasn't aware that being infertile meant that society can do what it wants with you.
Better idea: raise all children in a creche until they're 10, then have couples draft them like a fantasy football team.
Would that mean all the worst parents would draft first?
I want to moneyball that bitch. Get twenty kids whose expected value is higher than their sale value. While you yuppies will be bankrupt buying one genius kid I will have twenty smart kids for the same price turning out code and content.
Tell that to a hetero couple.
Why discriminate?
Do you say the same thing to couples conceiving naturally; that natural conception should be second to adoption?
Because if you don't, you would be the one discriminating.
Yes.
When was the last time you told that to a hetero couple?
In my original comment. Because I don't discriminate you'll notice that I didn't specify who should choose adoption, that means everyone should. I get that are you just being disingenuous because you've never seen someone with conviction of morals before, but please, try to catch up.
Your original comment wasn't to a hetero couple.
Do you know how complicated and long an adoption process is? Sure, it would be awesome if people adopted kids instead of making more, but adoption will not be a viable option for most people until that mess is somved.